thinking about the statement that all maladaptive coping mechanisms were helpful and, well, adaptive, at some point, and that they become maladaptive when the circumstance changes or when their detriments outweigh their benefits, and how the framework of “this is no longer helpful to you” is probably better than “this is a bad habit/this is bad for you.” How much better “you don’t have to live like that anymore” feels than “that’s a bad habit you picked up when you were in a bad place.” “It’s ok, you can look now,” vs “you’ve been tainted/infected/sullied by a previous bad circumstance.”

Thought about this today while reading about hermit crabs.

Hermit crabs start out their lives tiny and defenceless, and they choose a small shell to protect them. When they grow too big for the shell, big enough that it stops them from growing more, they abandon it and move on to a shell better for them at that size.

Does that mean the old shell was a terrible mistake? No, because it protected them back when they were smaller and more defenceless! But now it’s limiting their growth, and it’s time for them to find a better shell.

Humans, like hermit crabs, pick up shells when we need protection. Sometimes, we need to ditch those shells to keep growing! If we look at them as shells instead of Irredeemable Moral Failures, it’s a hell of a lot easier to let them go.

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.

1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.

2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.

3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)

4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.

5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.

6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.

7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.

U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).

Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.

Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else

Unlike other antelope, bonteboks can’t jump. That didn’t stop this kid
from leaping into our hearts on May 1,
2018. The gestation period for this particular antelope is seven to
eight months, and their young are up and mobile within minutes after
birth (called precocial). Young calves are born tan in color, which
helps them blend into their environment, providing camouflage while they
are vulnerable and most susceptible to predation. They are born without
horns, but they begin developing within the first few months of their
lives.

The most common cause of female infertility – polycystic ovary syndrome – may be caused by a hormonal imbalance before birth. The finding has led to a cure in mice, and a drug trial is set to begin in women later this year.

Polycystic ovary syndrome affects up to one in five women worldwide, three-quarters of whom struggle to fall pregnant. The condition is typically characterised by high levels of testosterone, ovarian cysts, irregular menstrual cycles, and problems regulating sugar, but the causes have long been a mystery. “It’s by far the most common hormonal condition affecting women of reproductive age but it hasn’t received a lot of attention,” says Robert Norman at the University of Adelaide in Australia.

I try not to get all “WOO!” when I see optimistic science articles, because I know that there’s a long, hard road between an article and a cure, but… God, I hope they’re making real strides on this. Because while the article leads with “three-quarters of whom struggle to fall pregnant” (because of course it does–the article is distressingly focused on increasing fertility), but the syndrome causes a lot of pain and fatigue and a variety of uncomfortable physical symptoms for the one in five women who have it, and “it hasn’t received a lot of attention” is the understatement of the century
(seriously, if there was a disease affecting one in five men that
involved chronic pain, it would have its own damn charity by now).

So if you have PCOS, I know this is only the beginning of the start of the journey toward good news, but… it’s better news than a week ago.

(Image description: background is dark pavement with a white painted arrow pointing to the left; white text above the arrow says “Labels are a tool to help you better understand yourself and connect with community. You get to decide which labels you use.”)

Uh, no. You will move. All the way over to a smoking area. Tf you think this is?

And if non smokers move that’s when people start to complain with the whole “UHM, WE’RE NOT MONSTERS WE’RE SMOKERS UWU” arguement

like bro i vape 0% nico shit but i still dont condone passive murder, so i move my ass too, get to the damn designated smoking areas.

You chose to start smoking, you chose to light up in a public place.

I did not choose to breathe your fucking smoke.

Get the fuck out of here with your selfish horseshit.

also some of us are FUCKING ALLERGIC

People: hey smoking is extremely bad and is literally your choice but like none of us want to get cancer or die or have potential lung damage cause some of us have lung conditions so could you kindly not smoke directly into my eye lids?

Smokers: HeY! This Is a FrEE country MaN!! DoNT like IT? DonT brEaTH iT!

Smokers children: *grow up with horrible lung damage*

Smokers: how could society do this to my kids?

I like how the world has literally come to arguing over whether people should be able to breathe or not

The guy running for Gov of Ok thinks any disabled person who can’t work should die

Please please please share! This is a legit account and this guy’s fb is linked from his site at http://chrisforgov.com/

He’s deleted all these comments! Don’t let him get away with this. Keep his name on blast and make people aware

OKAY ACTUALLY I WENT TO THIS GUYS FB PAGE AND HES TERRIBLE WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK. It honestly looks like a parody account but?? I don’t think it is?

It’s not. Locals say he regularly outs anyone who speaks up against him and pulls their entire background and then sues people. He also runs a company where he regularly sabotages other businesses. He’s a disgusting piece of trash

More from Chris

pls boost this piece of shit and make his life hell

DO NOT LET THIS SHITSTAIN EVEN THINK HE CAN BECOME A GOVORNER IN MY STATE I SWEAR TO GOD. WE LIVE IN THE SAME CITY. I WILL PERSONALLY PUNCH HIM IF I SEE HIM. IF HE THINKS MY BROTHER SHOULD DIE I’LL KILL HIM FIRST.